Wednesday, February 6, 2008

NOVEMBER 1980 ELECTION RESULTSReagan won the 1980 presidential election, carrying 44 states with 489 electoral votes to 49 electoral votes for Carter (representing six states and Washington, D.C.)!! But interestingly, in 1976 Reagan lost the Republican Primary to the RINO Gerald Ford 1,187 to 1,070. History repeats itself.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

VOTERS BEWARE! MATCHUPS ARE IRRELEVANTHead to head matchups are irrelevant this early in January or February: 1) 90% of the media is Democrat so polls are often biased or misleading, 2) potential third party spoilers make head-to-head completely irrelevant, 3) name recognition and familiarity always tighten the race, 4) unpredictable circumstances at the time of an election largely shape results.

On point two, can anyone say Ross Perot, Mayor Bloomberg, and Ralph Nader? On point three, Hilary and McCain are recognizable names, but Obama and Romney are still unknown quantities that the public is slowly getting to know. On point four, campaigns are often unpredictable. Wasn't Guiliani the 'clear' frontrunner last year and McCain's campaign literally dead? Wasn't Hilary the 'inevitable candidate' just two months ago? So much for the polls...

McCain cannot present stark constrast with Hillary, cannot energize the vote, and absolutely cannot win a general election. Republican Moderates like McCain ALWAYS lose elections (Ford 1976, Bush Sr 1992, Senator Dole war hero 1996).MCCAIN THE FLIP-FLOPPERJohn McCain is a huge flip-flopper on almost every major issue. McCain is not a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative, and not even a foreign policy conservative!! His positions are that of a blue dog Democrat. McCain is a total fake when he avows to the American people that he is a 'conservative.'

1) AGAINST federal funding for stem cell research before he voted FOR federal funding for stem cell research. AGAINST repeal of Roe v Wade before he was FOR repeal of Roe v Wade

2) AGAINST gay marriage before he voted FOR gay marriage and judicial activism by voting AGAINST the Federal Marriage Amendment

3) said he was FOR Amnesty (Tuscon Citizen May 29, 2003 & McCain Kennedy) before he ran for office and now he's AGAINST Amnesty

4) voted twice AGAINST Bush tax cuts (2001,2003, one of only two Republicans to vote against tax cuts) before he ran for the Republican nomination (2008) and now he is FOR the same Bush tax cuts he originally voted against (even lied about why he originally voted against the tax cuts, because they benefit the rich)

5) AGAINST ethanol subsidies before he ran in Iowa primary and was FOR ethanol subsidies

6) AGAINST American jobs goings overseas before he voted FOR McCain Lieberman (raises carbon tax 50 cents per gallon, or $1000/yr per tax-payer) and voted FOR McCain Edwards Kennedy (more litigation and frivilous lawsuits for doctors) which forces American corporations overseas through over-regulation and over-taxation and also increases cost of products and services exponentially

7) AGAINST facism and attacks on the Constitution before he voted FOR McCain Feingold which was ruled unconstitutional violation of free speech by the U.S. Supreme Court (Alito was part of the majority decision, McCain said Alito ‘wore his conservatism on his sleeve’ and so wouldn’t nominate justices like him)

8) AGAINST terrorism before he was FOR open borders and FOR criminal trials (constitutional rights) for terrorists and FOR weakening interrogation practices by the CIA

Ironically, McCain would rather give foreign terrorists constitutional rights (8) than to give American citizens the constitutional right to free speech within 30 days of an election (7)!! What is he hiding about his record that he wants to pass a Law that you can't criticize him 30 days before an election?

NOT TOUGH ON TERRORISMBesides open borders, criminal trials for terrorists, and weaking of CIA interrogation practices on terrorists, McCain's claim to be the master-mind behind the Troop Surge is his biggest lie. A few Democrats and anti-Bush Republican Chuck Hagel were actually the originators of the troop surge policy, and wanted to criticize Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq (at the same time other Democrats criticized Bush for not pulling troops out!!). Bush would have done troop surge with or without McCain, and McCain needlessly politicized the issue by attacking and with the Democrats piling on Bush’s administration (Rumself was Bush’s Secretary of Defense) instead of just advocating Troop Surge without bashing Bush. McCain is amazingly arrogant to take ALL THE CREDIT for the troop surge policy despite the true master-mind behind the troop surage, General Petraeus and GW, and despite Romney and Guiliani’s support for the troop surge as soon as Bush announced it. McCain’s arrogance makes him a horrible diplomat who would rather ‘get credit’ than ‘help people.’

DEMOCRATS ORIGINATED "TROOP SURGE" POLICY IN 2003/2004!!John Kerry and Hilary Clinton said we needed moretroops 12/3/03Kerry warns of 'cut and run' in Iraq, Democrat assails Bush policy, aide keeps open possibility of sending more US troops, Dec 3, 2003"Kerry foreign policy advisor Rand Beers told reporters Kerry “would not rule out the possibility” of sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq. "It is very clear the number of troops is inadequate” in Iraq, Beers told reporters in a telephone conference call previewing the speech. Kerry’s first preference, he said, would be to persuade foreign governments to deploy more troops to help share the burden with Americans.But by not foreclosing the possibility of dispatching more U.S. troops to Iraq, Kerry seems to have changed his position and to have repositioned himself as a more hawkish alternative to Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean.In a Sept. 4 debate in Albuquerque, N.M., Kerry said, “We should not send more American troops. That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization. We do not want a greater sense of American occupation.”As he flew back to the United States from his Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush said he had told American commanders there, “My message was, I know you’ll succeed, and I’m here to tell you we’re going to stay the course.”But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said recently, “We’ve got 127,000 men and women over in Iraq, and that’s a lot. It’s not permanent. What we hope to do is to continue to increase the Iraqi security forces to take over those responsibilities.”Kerry’s speech comes at a time when Democrats are moving to outflank Bush on both the doveish and the hawkish sides.On the left, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich continues to press for rapid withdrawal of all U.S. forces, while on the hawkish side, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, just back from a tour of Afghanistan and Iraq, called for more U.S. troops in Iraq... Clinton’s call for more troops puts her at odds with Kucinich and the left wing of her party. The argument for more troops in Iraq got articulate support Tuesday from Iraq expert and former Clinton administration National Security Council official Kenneth Pollack. “We desperately need more people. We need more civil affairs officers…. There are not enough of them; they are horribly understaffed,” Pollack argued in a talk to policy-makers and reporters at the Brookings Institution in Washington."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660748/Democrats criticized Bush for not sending enough troops. This was never "courageous" but mere partisan bickering and attacking a Command-in-Chief during the Middle of a War. http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=239352&&http://tammybruce.com/2007/02/hoping_for_failure_1.phpJohn Kerry and Hilary Clinton said we needed more troops Kerry says he would send more troops to Iraq if necessary 4/18/04http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-18-kerry-nbc_x.htmKerry proposes 40,000 more troops, as Democrats back Bush war spending By Patrick Martin, 19February 2005http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/kerr-f19.shtml

MCCAIN LIES TO CREATE AN IMAGINARY DIFFERENCE IN POSITIONMcCain has the same position on the War in Iraq that McCain has. Bob Bennet, who endorsed (voted for) McCain for President, said McCain owes Romney an apology for lying about Romney's Iraq position. Romney always supported troop surge, and McCain always supported secret benchmarks. Would McCain seriously have us believe he would never scale down troops even after the Iraqi security forces are prepared to take over their own security?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AX_4WmKG7I&feature=relatedJhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz11W74nhFI

"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk." (Ann Coulter, Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth, January 23, 2008, http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=231)TEN REASONS WHY ROMNEY IS THE MOST ELECTABLE

Romney ran for Governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, and won!

The Economy is going into recession and Romney is bar none the best candidate, Republican or Democrat, on the economy. Romney has proven track record in turning around failing businesses and understanding the complex dynamics of the economy. Unlike GW, no one can call him stupid. He graduated the top of his class at Harvard Business and Law Schools. McCain graduated at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy with some 1,000 graduates. Can anyone say McCain-lackluster?

Last year Mitt Romney rasied more money than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. Fund-raising is a major sign of grass-roots support.

Moderates never win elections. Can anyone say Bob Dole?

In October 1980 Polls showed Carter defeating Reagan, so who cares about polls?

Democrat pundit Donna Brazille let it slip that Mitt is the one Democrats fear most.

Mitt has received the most votes of any Republican candidate.

Romney (Nevada) and Obama (South Carolina) are the only two candidates to win the majority of Primary voters in a State (Democrat party refuses to count Florida delegates). All other candidates are unable to energize voters.

All candidates talk big about changing Washington and improving healthcare. Romney did it. He did something no one thought possible. Romney miraculously passed legislation for universal healthcare, with private insurance, without raising taxes. Romney turned around businesses like Staples, Sports Authority, and Domino's. He turned around a budget deficit into a surplus as Governor of Massachusetts. He turned around the scandal-ridden Olympics from a deficit to a surplus. No other candidate's record comes close!!

POLLS SHOWED CARTER DEFEATING REAGAN IN OCTOBER 1980Who were the last Republican moderates to run for office? Gerald Ford (1976), Bush Sr (1992), and Senator Dole (1996). They all lost miserably. Polls about McCain beating Obama or Hilary are bogus. January 1996 Polls showed Senator Bob Dole (war hero and Senator for decades) beating Bill Clinton, but Clinton ended up defeating Dole in a landslide in November. McCain cannot energize the base of the Republican party (conservatives), period.

"Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin." (Mark Levin Endorses Romney, 'Rally for Romney, Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late.' http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/)

"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk." (Ann Coulter, Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth, January 23, 2008, http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=231)

"I had a similar discussion with Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, also a passionate supporter. He told me that the vast majority of his Senate colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, feel that Mitt will be the Republican nominee. He also said that a majority of his Democrat associates in the Senate feel that Mitt would be the toughest opponent for their nominee based on his skills, message and personality"http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2007_06_24_archive.asp

Rush has pointed out that if you wanna see who the conservative is, see who the media hates the most. The media praises McCain as a 'war hero' and 'straight-talker.' But the media also praised Bob Dole ('oh, he's the most electable against Bill Clinton, oh, he's a war hero and no one should criticize him'). 90% of the media votes Democrat. The media is using reverse psychology. All the Democrat pundits are using the same talking point, 'oh, McCain is the most electable and the toughest to beat.' If the Democrat media really believed that, would they really admit it publicly? Do you think the Democrat pundits would really tell you the truth about which Republican is the most electable? If the media praises McCain as a straight-talker and a man of honor, and label Romney as a 'fake', you know the reverse must be true.

MITT GETS MOST VOTES AND IS WINNING MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANSAlthough Mccain was in a distant third place in three states (Iowa, Nevada, Wyoming: notice the media didn't give much coverage to Nevada or Wyoming), Mitt was first (Michigan, Nevada, Wyoming) or a close second (New Hampshire, Florida) in every state except South Carolina. In South Carolina, Fred Thompson and Huckabee split the conservative vote with Romney. McCain won New Hampshire and South Carolina but only because of an open Republican primary that allowed Independents and Democrats to vote. McCain won Florida only because of the large number of moderates (RINOs), pro-amnesty Latinos, and because Governor Christ helped move legislation to move-up the Primary to help-out his fellow-RINO McCain.

McCain has all the name recognition in the world but still came in a distant third in Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming. Mitt is the only Republican candidate to win a majority of voters in a state's primary (Nevada). Mitt still would have doubled McCain's vote in Nevada even without the Mormon vote. Mitt has consistently won among "conservative" and especially among "very conservative" voters. Mitt actually did better with "terrorism" voters in Florida than McCain.

Obama and Romney are the only candidates that are energizing voters so far. Also, notice that Obama only lost to Hillary in states where Republicans have an "open primary" the same day as the Democrats (New Hampshire, Nevada, and Florida; South Carolina held Democrat and Republican primaries on different days). Why? Because many of the Obama "Independents" (Democrats) have been voting for McCain in open primaries!!!

Thursday, January 31, 2008

DOBSON WON'T VOTE FOR MCCAIN EVEN IF NOMINATEDMCCAIN IS FOR FEDERAL FUNDING OF STEM CELL RESEARCH"Dr. James Dobson released a statement to The Laura Ingraham Show today, stating his personal opinions of this critical election.As voters in 24 states head to the polls today to choose a presidential nominee, Dr. James Dobson released a statement to The Laura Ingraham Show today. He stated his personal opinions of this critical election:"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language. I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience. "But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country."http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006444.cfmhttp://www.family.org/OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SUPPORTS FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (FMA) TO CONSTITUTIONhttp://politicaljunkfood76.blogspot.com/ROMNEY A TRUE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE1) FOR Federal Marriage Protection Act (Federal Marriage Ammendment or FMA to U.S. Constitution), AGAINST gay marriage, and even AGAINST civil unions,2) AGAINST federal funding for stem cell research,3) FOR Alito and truly conservative judges.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

Miller, National Review's national political reporter, wrote the following in an NR cover story: "On either [gay marriage or stem cells], a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment."

MCCAIN ABSOLUTELY NOT A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVEIf McCain doesn't even understand that foreign terrorists should NOT be given constitutional rights and due process, could even co-sponsor legislation that prohibits free speech 30 days before an election (McCain Feingold) and thus give the media MORE power to sway elections, and co-sponsored of bill (McCain Feingold) provisions of which were OVERTURED by the U.S. Supreme Court as violating the Constitution, then at best you have to say he doesn't interpret the constitution strictly and at worst he is actively subverting our most basic civil rights. Either way, how can we trust him to make sound judicial nominations of strict constructionist judges if he can't even interpret the constitution strictly himself? Ironically, McCain wants to give foreign terrorists constitutional rights (criminal trials in American courtrooms for foreign terrorists), but wants to rob Americans of our constitutional right to free speech within 30 days of an election (McCain Feingold)!! Unspeakable hypocrisy.

McCain is NOT a Social Conservative. He just doesn't have the street cred:1) Voted AGAINST Federal Marriage Protection Act (MPA) which was a constitutional ban prohibiting judges from legislating gay marriage from the bench2) Voted FOR federal funding of stem cell research and destruction of new lines of embryos3) Is in FAVOR of constitutional rights (due process, habeas corpus, criminal trials) for terrorists (unlawful enemy combatants)4) Voted FOR and CO-SPONSORED McCain-Feingold which prohibits free speech (attack ads) 30 days before an election (U.S. Supreme Court ruled provisions of this bill are unconstitutional!!), ironic and supremely hyportical in light of his smear campaign in the last 3 days before Florida primary with his accomplices in the media5) In 2000 claimed George W Bush could NOT beat Gore in the general election because he was beholden to the "special interest group" of the Christian Right! Compared Farakhan and Sharpton as 'agents of intolerance' on the left, even as Fallwell and Robertson are 'agents of intolerance' on the Right. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.htmlhttp://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20000229virginianat1.asp6) Senator Santorum, the most vocal Social Conservative in the Senate, has denounced McCain as showing NO leadership in the Senate on ANY social issue and has excoriatingly attacked McCain's image as a social conservative (see below)

MCCAIN A TOTAL PHONYMcCain doesn't need fundraising. Media gives it to him free. McCain lies about Romney 3 days before Florida primary with willing accomplices in the press. So what hypocrisy to deny regular Americans the right to produce attack ads within 30 days of an election (McCain Feingold)! So much for free speech!

Senator McCain cannot win General Election any more than Senator Dole in 1996. Even though all early media polls during Primary Season showed Dole winning handily, Clinton CRUSHED Dole in the General. Wasn't pretty.

No difference between Hilary and McCain. Both voted for War in Iraq, and both later attacked Rumsfeld (Rumsfeld opposed troop surge, so we sometimes forget the troop surge was originally just an attack on Bush's Administration. Interesting, since McCain never attacked Democrats in 20 years in the Senate but saves all his animus for Republicans.). McCain is also against the Federal Marriage Protection Act to the U.S. Constitution, was one of only two Republicans who voted against Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (now he is for them!), and wants constitutional rights and trials given to unlawful enemy combatants! Constitutional rights for foreign terrorists but no constitutional right to free speech (McCain Feingold struck down by U.S. Supreme Court) for American citizens! This man wouldn't know a strict constructionist judge from a terrorist!http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/01/14/a_conservative_nightmare_republican_nominee,_john_mccain

Why is McCain trying to change the subject to War? McCain is over! He admits he doesn't understand the economy during an apparent recession!!

Following the debate, MSNBC's David Shuster noted McCain's response in a fact check, asserting, "John McCain was asked a question during the debte that included a quote about McCain talking about economics. And McCain denied the quote." After airing a video clip of the exchange, Shuster asserted: "Well, actually, NBC News got that quote from last month. John McCain was heard saying on December 17th in The Boston Globe and Time magazine, quote, 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book.' " Following Shuster's fact check, Matthews himself acknowledged McCain's lack of "candor," asking Newsweek's Howard Fineman, "Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record?" In his response, Fineman asserted, "You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wish it away."...RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgment, you are not well-versed on.McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from.

MATTHEWS: Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record?FINEMAN: I think he straight-talked him right over that bridge -- himself right over that bridge to nowhere that he kept talking about. You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wishMATTHEWS: Bob, it's amazing that, you know, we all in the media salute candor, because we do believe in it. It's also useful in the news coverage. You can actually cover a guy if he's honest.HERBERT: Right.MATTHEWS: John McCain admitting that his strong suit is not the economy on a number of occasions, and now waffling on that on Meet the Press -- do you think that'll hurt him? Just saying, "I'm not good at what we're all worried about."HERBERT: That might be a little bit too much candor. I mean, you don't want to show -- you don't want to suggest that you're not up to speed on the biggest issue facing the country in a presidential election.http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300008

Mitt Romney was strong on the economy last night, and stands FOR the Federal Marriage Protection Act to ban gay marriage with a constitutional ammendment. Romney pointed out that McCain's carbon tax and environmental regulation will force American business to move to China to escape over-regulation and over-taxation. Average American will pay $1,000 a year more in gas taxes if McCain Lieberman ever passed. McCain doesn't require Chinese business to sign on first. Simply clueless! McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts twice in 2001, but said it was because there wasn't simultaneous spending cuts. But Reagan raised spending BIG TIME during the 80s when McCain voted FOR Reagan's tax cuts. McCain said in 2001 that the rich would benefit too much from tax cuts, so he voted against them, before he flip-flopped and now says he's for making them permanent!! His explanation was LAME!!! McCain voted against Federal Marriage Protection Act.

McCain doesn't need fundraising. Media gives it to him free. McCain lies about Romney 3 days before Florida primary with willing accomplices in the press. So what hypocrisy to deny regular Americans the right to produce attack ads within 30 days of an election (McCain Feingold)! So much for free speech! Senator McCain cannot win General Election any more than Senator Dole in 1996. Even though all early media polls during Primary Season showed Dole winning handily, Clinton CRUSHED Dole in the General. Wasn't pretty. No difference between Hilary and McCain. Both voted for War in Iraq, and both later attacked Rumsfeld. McCain is also against the Federal Marriage Protection Act to the U.S. Constitution, was one of only two Republicans who voted against Bush tax cuts (now he is for them!), and wants constitutional rights and trials given to unlawful enemy combatants! This man wouldn't know a strict constructionist judge from a terrorist!

Straight Talk Express has Derailed, It's Over for McCain. McCain is the Hilary Clinton of the Republican Party, and lies about his opponents in the same kind of mean-spirited way and with his accomplice in the press even as Hilary does.

Jeffrey Toobin of CNN (no right winger or Romney supporter) says McCain gets the most adoring press from the media of any candidate, and uses that media-generated 'credibility' to straight-up lie about Romney's positions 3 days before a primary election in Florida: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz11W74nhFI

Following the debate, MSNBC's David Shuster noted McCain's response in a fact check, asserting, "John McCain was asked a question during the debte that included a quote about McCain talking about economics. And McCain denied the quote." After airing a video clip of the exchange, Shuster asserted: "Well, actually, NBC News got that quote from last month. John McCain was heard saying on December 17th in The Boston Globe and Time magazine, quote, 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book.' " Following Shuster's fact check, Matthews himself acknowledged McCain's lack of "candor," asking Newsweek's Howard Fineman, "Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record?" In his response, Fineman asserted, "You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wish it away."...

RUSSERT: Senator McCain, you have said repeatedly, quote, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgment, you are not well-versed on.McCAIN: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from.

MATTHEWS: Howard, the "Straight Talk Express": Did it stall tonight? Was it derailed by his denial of a quote that's on the record?FINEMAN: I think he straight-talked him right over that bridge -- himself right over that bridge to nowhere that he kept talking about. You can't pretend that you didn't say something you said. You just can't wish

MATTHEWS: Bob, it's amazing that, you know, we all in the media salute candor, because we do believe in it. It's also useful in the news coverage. You can actually cover a guy if he's honest.HERBERT: Right.MATTHEWS: John McCain admitting that his strong suit is not the economy on a number of occasions, and now waffling on that on Meet the Press -- do you think that'll hurt him? Just saying, "I'm not good at what we're all worried about."HERBERT: That might be a little bit too much candor. I mean, you don't want to show -- you don't want to suggest that you're not up to speed on the biggest issue facing the country in a presidential election.http://mediamatters.org/items/200801300008

Eight sitting Senators and Former Speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert)Romney has the same number of Senator endorsements as Obama including Senators from South Carolina (Jim Demint), Alaska (Lisa Murkowski), Missouri (Jim Talent), Mississippi (Tad Cochran), Colorado (Wayne Allard), New Hampshire (Judd Gregg), Two Senators from Utah (Hatch and Bennet).

Morton Blackwell, conservative columnist and baptist leader"The only way conservatives are going to beat the Democrats this year is if we unite the major elements of our coalition. Governor Romney is the only candidate who can bring conservative change to Washington now and maintain the conservative coalition so many of us helped Ronald Reagan build. I am proud to support Governor Romney."http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/morton_c_blackwell.php

Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University, GW got flack in 2000 for going to such a radical fundamentalist evangelical campus"And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans." He also said, "As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism. But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs."http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/bob_jones_iii.php

Jerry Falwell Says He could Vote for MormonBECK: Mitt Romney. Could you vote for a Mormon? FALWELL: Of course. I could vote for any man or woman whose views and values more closely approximate my Christian views and values than the opponent of that person would be. I know Mitt Romney. He`s a friend of mine...We`re going to have two candidates. Third party never works in America. We`re going to have somebody opposing Hillary Clinton, who I believe will be the candidate for the Democrats. And that person, hopefully, will be pro-life, will be pro-family and strong on military defense and anti-terrorism and willing to face frontally, militarily any force that attempts to take away our freedoms. Now, that is not Hillary. And that--there`s some Republicans who don`t have that kind of stance...And so I`ll be voting. I will be asked -- I`m not trying to get a Sunday school teacher in the White House. We`ve got 1,000 of them here at my Thomas Rose Church. Not looking for a Sunday school -- I`m looking for a good moral, intelligent leader who is right on the issues that count.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/05/gb.01.htmlhttp://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/gary_bauer.phpMore Falwell"We're not trying to find a Sunday school teacher in chief; we're trying to find a commander in chief," Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority, told the Associated Press. "Where he goes to church will not be a factor; how he lives his life will be."Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority, told the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger the following: "I have no problem voting for a person who is not of my faith as long as he or she stands with me on the moral and social issues. Mitt Romney may be a candidate for president. He's a Mormon. If he's pro-life, pro-family, I don't think he'll have any problem getting the support of evangelical Christians."http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/jerry_falwell_1.phphttp://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/jerry_falwell.php

Chuck Colson Kind OfColson, the leader of Prison Fellowship Ministries, called Gov. Romney “a first-rate guy in every respect” and “a social conservative on most of the issues we care about” in a Weekly Standard interview. He added that while he has “fundamental” theological differences with Mormonism, he “could in very good conscience support Romney.”http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/chuck_colson.phpEchoing previous comments, the renowned Colson told National Review, "[Gov. Romney is] a very attractive and viable candidate. As an evangelical, I'm not troubled that he's a Mormon. I would have theological concerns about his soul, but not about his competence. I'm looking for someone who shares my values and is capable of governing." http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/correction/chuck_colson_1.php

VOTERS BEWARE! Why early matchup polls are total bunk:1) Early polls taken during the 1996 primary season turned out to be dead wrong in the case of Senator Dole, since all January polls showed him beating Bill Clinton but in the General Election in November he lost in a landslide,2) Potential third party candidates like Perot make any 'head-to-head' or 'one-on-one' poll at this point wholly irrelevant (i.e., Bloomberg, Nader),3) The hardcore conservative base told Rush in no uncertain terms they will not turn out to vote for McCain in the General Election, and no Republican nominee has ever won a General Election without energizing the conservative base,4) McCain obviously can get anti-Romney votes, but so far he hasn't won a majority of any state and has single-handedly de-energized the conservative base.

REALITY CHECK"Many McCain supporters insist he is the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. And they point to certain polls. The polls are meaningless this far from November. Six months ago, the polls had Rudy winning the Republican nomination. In October 1980, the polls had Jimmy Carter defeating Ronald Reagan. This is no more than spin." (Rally for Romney, Conservatives need to act now, before it is too late. By Mark R. Levin - Endorsement) http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/

"And also says this about whether the race is over, "No, absolutely not. I think this race is wide open. I think Mitt Romney still has a very good chance of winning. You know, I think right now, we’re looking at the media trying to make Barack Obama the president, and make John McCain the shill for him. And I don’t see, I think they know that John McCain can’t win this election, and they know…it’s probably the best chance for them to do it." (Senator Rick Santorum,http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=e96c3803-c542-4a57-98bd-68635a744540)

"John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk" (Ann Coulter, 'STRAIGHT TALK' EXPRESS TAKES SCENIC ROUTE TO TRUTH, http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=231)

MEDIA ANOINTS MCCAIN THE NEXT "BOB DOLE"McCain doesn't need fundraising. Media gives it to him free. McCain lies about Romney 3 days before Florida primary with willing accomplices in the press. So what hypocrisy to deny regular Americans the right to produce attack ads within 30 days of an election (McCain Feingold)! So much for free speech!

Senator McCain cannot win General Election any more than Senator Dole in 1996. Even though all early media polls during Primary Season showed Dole winning handily, Clinton CRUSHED Dole in the General. Wasn't pretty.

No difference between Hilary and McCain. Both voted for War in Iraq, and both later attacked Rumsfeld. McCain is also against the Federal Marriage Protection Act to the U.S. Constitution, was one of only two Republicans who voted against Bush tax cuts (now he is for them!), and wants constitutional rights and trials given to unlawful enemy combatants! This man wouldn't know a strict constructionist judge from a terrorist!

Senator McCain is a CLONE of Senator Dole. Both were Senators for a couple decades. Both were decorated war heroes with serious war injuries. Both were known to 'reach across' the aisle and 'be friends' with liberals. Both thought their friends the 'Clintons' were going to go easy on them during the debates (hardly!). Both were known Rhinos and moderates especially on taxes. Both were running against a Clinton (Dole in 1996 and McCain maybe in 2008 if he gains the nomination).

Both during the primaries were AHEAD of their rival Clinton in all the media polls (all polls showed Dole beating Bill Clinton in the General Election). And guess what, MY FRIENDS? Bob E.D. Dole was SLAUGHTERED in the General Election despite all the early 'polls' to the contrary!! That's why Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt Romney, because he is the ONLY conservative that can win in the General election. It takes the whole Republican BASE to win an election, not just 30% of moderates!!

Saturday, January 26, 2008

McCain is the next John Kerry (I voted for the 85 billion before I voted against it):1) Voted Against the Bush tax cuts (2001 and 2003) before he was For the Bush tax cuts (2008)2) For Amnesty (in 2003 he even used the word 'amnesty' to describe his own position) before he said he is Against Amnesty (2008)4) Voted FOR federal funding after he Voted AGAINST federal funding for stem cell research3) Voted Against Federal Marriage Protection Act (MPA) but Now he's against gay marriage?5) Attacks Christian Right as a 'Special Interest' and 'Agents of Intolerance', but Now he's a Social Conservative?4) Against Ethanol Subsidies before he was For Ethanol Subsidies in Iowa Primary5) For constitutional rights for terrorists and for prohibiting freedom of speech 30 days before an election (provisions of which were overturned by U.S. Supreme Court!), but NOW he's FOR judges who will be strict constructionists of the Constitution?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#_note-68

The Truth: “But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations.” Source: San Francisco Chronicle, August 20, 1999.

Jeffrey Toobin of CNN (no right winger or Romney supporter) says McCain gets adoring press from the media and so uses that 'credibility' to straight-up lie about Romney's positions 3 days before a primary election in Florida: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz11W74nhFI

'Straight Talk' Express Takes Scenic Route to Truth by Ann Coulter Posted: 01/23/2008 John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk. Of course, I might lie constantly too, if I were seeking the Republican presidential nomination after enthusiastically promoting amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws. I might lie too, if I had opposed the Bush tax cuts, a marriage amendment to the Constitution, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in Alaska...http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=231

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

GW lied! He betrayed our fears!"The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

GW's 2003 Iraq doctrine is not pre-emption but is the same as Clinton's 1998 Iraq doctrine, namely Iraq, because Saddham started War when he invaded Kuwait and because of the danger of Saddham passing WMD to terrorists, must be forced, with or without the U.N., to keep the ceasefire agreement from the 1st Gulf War in 1991. If you don't believe me, believe the neocon Democrats in their own words.

Neocon Senator Hilary Clinton"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001...But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998." (October 10, 2002, Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against Iraq http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)

Neocon President Bill Clinton"Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17, 1998)http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf

"Together, we also must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)" (President Clinton's 5th State of the Union Address - as delivered January 27, 1998 http://www.americanpolitics.info/clinton/speeches/sou98.shtmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME)

"The United States has actively and consistently opposed Saddam because he has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a region vital to our interests. A stable Middle East means we can better protect the free flow of oil, fight terrorism and build support for a comprehensive Middle East peace. There is no greater challenge to the region's stability and to America's security in that region than Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam Husayn, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign adversary, but against his own people. I have no doubt he will use them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked."-- Clinton's National Security Advisor Samuel Berger at the National Press Club, February 13, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Neocon Senator John Kerry"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future." -- John Kerry 10/9/02 http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/10/say-anything.html"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03

TERRORISTS DON'T KILL HUMAN SHIELDS, BUSH DOESIN 1998 DEMOCRATS SAY SADDHAM RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY CASUALTY:"If Saddam is allowed to rebuild his arsenal unchecked, none of the region's children will be safe...But from Europe to the Persian Gulf, all agree on the bottom line: Saddam must allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their mission with full and free access to any site they suspect maybe hiding material or information related to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs. That is what Saddam agreed to as a condition for ending the Gulf War way back in 1991...Saddam himself understands that the international community places a higher value on the lives of the Iraqi people than he does. That is why he uses innocent women and children as human shields, risking what we care about -- human lives -- to protect what he cares about -- his weapons. If force proves necessary to resolve this crisis, we will do everything we can to prevent innocent people from getting hurt. But make no mistake: Saddam Hussein must bear full responsibility for every casualty that results." Bill Clinton, February 20, 1998"This is a crisis of Saddam's making. It can be unmade only when he can no longer threaten the international community with weapons of mass destruction."-- President Clinton, November 14, 1997. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/334.htm

IN 2003 DEMOCRATS SAY BUSH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY CASUALTY:"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." Senator Tom Daschle, March 18, 2003

"This may be a political year... but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force... [Saddam] has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period. Look, we have exhausted virtually [all] our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily. I don't know what purpose is served by attacking one another on this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it” (Senator Tom Daschle (D, SD) responds to Senator Trent Lott's contention that Bill Clinton had no long-term plan for dealing with Iraq, February, 1998)

NEOCON PLAN FOR NEW AMERICAN CENTURYNEOCON UNILATERALISM"The United States remains resolved and ready to secure by whatever means necessary Iraq's full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction . . . I believe that if it [Iraq] does not keep its word this time, everyone would understand that then the United States and hopefully all of our allies would have the unilateral right to respond at a time, place and manner of our own choosing."-- President Clinton, February 23, 1998.

"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal . . . If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity -- even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." [remember Clinton did take and "ambiguous third route" by not disarming Saddam, and this led inexorably to 911]-- President Clinton in remarks to Pentagon personnel, February 17, 1998.

"We would welcome any action by the Security Council that makes clear Iraq's responsibilities. There would be utility in sending a clear message to the government of Iraq that it had better not violate the agreement to which it has just signed. But our position remains clear: We believe we have the authority under existing Security Council resolutions to take action if that action is necessary . . ."While we welcome a principled diplomatic solution, and we have been prepared to go the last extra mile for a diplomatic solution, it is a solution that has to work in terms of deeds and not just words."-- Bruce Riedel, Special Assistant to the President and senior Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, the National Security Council during a briefing, February 26, 1998.(http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/334.htm).

We act in concert with the international community whenever possible; but do not hesitate to act unilaterally when necessary. Having decided (in the context of humanitarian and other interests) that use of military forces is appropriate, the decision on how they will be employed is based on two guidelines. First, our forces will have a clear mission and the means to achieve their objectives decisively. Second, as much as possible, we will seek the support and participation of our allies, friends, and relevant international institutions. When our vital interests are at stake, we are prepared to act alone.(National Security Strategy of Clinton Administration in 1999,http://www.cap.uni-muenchen.de/aktuell/positionen/2003_04_us_strategy.htm).

Sometimes the United States has to act alone, or at least has to act first. Sometimes we cannot let other countries have a veto on our foreign policy.(President Bill Clinton, Oct 6, 1996, Presidential Debate between Clinton and Dole )

"THE PRESIDENT: If Iraq fails to comply this time to provide immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the weapons inspectors, there will be serious consequences. I have ordered our military to remain in the Persian Gulf. Our soldiers, our ships, our planes will stay there in force until we are satisfied that Iraq is complying--that Iraq is complying with its commitments.Q Mr. President, if Iraq does not keep its word this time, do we go through this exercise of weeks and weeks and weeks again? THE PRESIDENT: I believe if it does not keep its word this time, everyone would understand that then the United States and hopefully all of our allies would have the unilateral right to respond at a time, place and manner of our own choosing. And I think that's enough for me to say about that at this time...Then we need to test the agreement and verify that the commitments which are made in writing are kept in fact. So trust should not have to be an issue here. If you have clarity, then you can verify. So over the next two days we have a very -- all Americans should have a positive reaction to the fact that we finally have a commitment to open all these sites and to let the inspectors finish their job. We need clarity. We need verification. And I intend to keep our forces at high levels of preparation in the Gulf in the near-term to see what happens in terms of honoring these obligations. Q Mr. President, Senator Lott says you lack a long-term strategy for handling Iraq. How do you respond to that, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Well, since 1991, our strategy has been to keep the sanctions on, keep Iraq from rebuilding its military might and threatening its neighbors, but to pursue this inspection system to end what is the biggest threat both to its neighbors and to others by indirection, which is the chemical, the biological, and the nuclear weapons program. That has been our strategy all along. Whether that should continue to be our strategy depends in no small measure I believe on whether this agreement is honored. Q Sir, is there any wiggle room -- Q Has Saddam capitulated, sir? THE PRESIDENT: I'll answer both questions. Q Has Saddam Hussein capitulated? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think he has admitted that he has to honor commitments he made back in '91. You know, I think that our tough response was essential to getting him to admit that. The Secretary General has conducted a hard mission. I am satisfied that he has done the best he can. And I am satisfied that we would not have this commitment to open all these spots had not the United States and our allies -- and there were lots of them, don't forget -- been prepared to go further and to take whatever actions were necessary.Q Is there any wiggle room in this agreement? Because even before you spoke some of your critics predicted that you would buy an agreement that was not air-tight simply as a way out. THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it's obvious that I haven't looked for a way out here. What I have looked for is a way forward. The United States, because of our position in the world, is called upon to bring its power to bear when it's important to do so. But we also should have the self-confidence and the conscience to show forbearance as well as strength, and to do what is right. The objective is unassailable, and he has agreed to the objective, which is full and free and unfettered access." (February 23, 1998, White House Press Conference, Remarks by President Clinton on Iraq, The Oval Office, warns of "serious consequences" if Iraq does not complyhttp://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19980223-19873.html)"I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)" (President Clinton's 5th State of the Union Address - as delivered January 27, 1998, http://www.americanpolitics.info/clinton/speeches/sou98.shtml)

NEOCON DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST"Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership...I sign H.R. 4655 into law." (William J Clinton, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, October 31, 1998 http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/WF981102/epf104.htm).

"I further think we must do more about democracy. Ten years ago I said it ought to matter to us how people govern themselves because democracies by and large don't go to war with each other, don't sponsor terrorist acts against each other, and are more likely to be reliable partners, protect the environment, and abide by the law. Democracy is a stabilizing force. It provides a nonviolent means for resolving disputes. I believe that. And it's no accident that most of these terrorists come from non-democratic countries. If you live in a country where you're never required to take responsibility for yourself, where you never even have to ask whether there's something you should be doing to solve your own problems, then people are kept in a kind of a permanent state of collective immaturity and it becomes quite east for them to believe that someone else's success is the cause of their distress. Now I've already told you I think we ought to be doing more to help, but there's some people you can't help if they don't help themselves. And I think this is a very, very important point. I have seen so many instances where peoples simply did not have any reference point because they were never required to take responsibility for themselves. If your families had raised you and they were so worried that you were going to hurt yourself that from the time that you were six 'til the time it came time for you to go to Georgetown they never let out of house [never let outside your country], you would have still been six emotionally, if you had never been able to leave the house. That's what it's like if you never get to have a say in your own life. I also think it's important when countries make a decision to be democracies that we recognize we ought to help them. I just got back from Spain where King Juan Carlos and Mikhail Gorbachov sponsored a conference designed specifically to help countries succeed once they choose democracy. You've got to deliver economic growth and honest government, and it's not as easy as it sounds...Why has it been 1,000 years since there was a serious challenge mounted from reformist moderates? Except for Attaturk in Turkey, what Sadat wished to do and didn't live to do in Egypt, and what King Hussein did in Jordan. In 1991 he got everybody together and he said, "I'll give up some powers. I'll let you have a parliament, everybody can run, the fundamentalists can run, but here are the boundaries beyond which you can't step, because we're going to hold this country together." It is no accident that in the inner Middle East it is the most stable country now, because there is some popular expression of opinion and people have to take some responsibility for themselves(William Jefferson ClintonGeorgetown UniversityNovember 7, 2001 http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?article=clintonspeech; see especially Clinton's Remarks on 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, in Letter I Democrats in 1998 Make Case for War in Iraq)

NEOCON SCLAIM IRAQ THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITYTogether, we also must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons -- and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. (Applause.) And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. (Applause.)President Clinton's 5th State of the Union Address - as delivered January 27, 1998http://www.americanpolitics.info/clinton/speeches/sou98.shtml

"There is no greater challenge to the region's stability and to America's security in that region than Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam Husayn, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign adversary, but against his own people. I have no doubt he will use them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked."-- National Security Advisor Samuel Berger at the National Press Club, February 13, 1998."He [Saddam] has started two wars. He has invaded a country next door. He is a repeat offender, and he is the kind of a rogue state leader that is a threat not only to his neighborhood, but because he has possessed and would like to possess more weapons of mass destruction, he is a threat to our national security . . . And given the stakes, especially with weapons of mass destruction, the world cannot afford to let Saddam try again. That's why what we are doing is so important."-- Secretary of State Albright speaking at the University of South Carolina, February 19, 1998."Let me remind all of you what this whole crisis is about: that is, to make sure that Saddam Husayn is not in a position to threaten the international community with weapons of mass destruction."-- Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at a press conference, November 20, 1997(http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/334.htm).

NEOCONS CLAIM SADDHAM THE NEXT HITLERMadeline Albright, Secretary of State for Bill Clinton, in 1998 called Saddam the "next Hitler", and I am inclined to agree with her. Hitler (years after WWI) and Saddam (immediately after the Gulf War) broke the conditions of their country's surrender, but the only difference is that action against Hitler came too late to avert WWII and Pearl Harbor was nothing compared to 911.MR. RUSSERT: We hear that argument from you now and from other Democrats, and yet five years ago when President Clinton was in office, his tone was very similar to President Bush’s. Let me show you February 17, 1998.(Videotape, February 17, 1998):PRES. BILL CLINTON: Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal.(End videotape)MR. RUSSERT: That’s very—and two days after that, this is what Madeleine Albright said. “I can honestly tell you that I don’t think that the world has seen, except maybe since Hitler, someone who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. ...If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far— that he can do untold damage. ...If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War. So, my lesson out of all of this is deal with the problem at the time that you can and don’t step away from it thinking that it’ll go away.”Five years ago, and for four of those years there have been no inspectors in Iraq. Why not listen to Bill Clinton, listen to Madeleine Albright and deal with the problem now than delay it because it will only get worse?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, I’ve never doubted the why of this issue. I have felt that what President Bush said and what Secretary Powell have said about why, that Saddam is a dreadful person and all that, I completely agree with and as you’ve pointed out said it myself. I think things are very different after 9/11, and my point here only is the following: Is that I believed President Bush when he told us that the war on terrorism is our major issue. And of all the various parts of Secretary Powell’s presentation, the link with al-Qaeda for me was the weakest. So I would be focusing much more attention on the war against terrorism, and for that we have to have international support. And that is being slowly dissipated as a result of some of the tactics of this administration. So it is not a matter of changing my mind about Saddam. I do believe that we had him in a box, that the no-fly zones are very wide, that there are ways to deal with him. I would never stop saying that, but I think we need to deal with terrorism and North Korea. They have the nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: Look, but The Washington Post on Wednesday said this, that after the tough talk by President Clinton, “...Mr. Clinton did fail to respond [in 1998]. Saddam Hussein had four years to strengthen his arsenal, even as the sanctions effectively collapsed. According to Mr. Blix and Western intelligence agencies, he illegally imported hundreds of new missile engines and rebuilt production facilities. He created drones and mobile biological laboratories and sought nuclear material from several nations.” With all that going on in the last five years, isn’t now the time to act?

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, Saddam has to disarm. There’s no question about that. There’s absolutely none. We need a lot of international support for that, and I have no problem with that. I just—and I also do think that we actually responded fairly robustly in 1998. Life is very different before 9/11 and everybody, including The Washington Post, needs to remember that. And I think that what we have to do is to pursue this. I believe in the why. I think we—it is important to get the United Nations to support this and the international community because we can’t do the job either in Iraq or fighting terrorism without them [back in 1998, Albright said we can do it without them,]. And one other aspect here, Tim, that I think we should keep in mind. The U.S. cannot run the world alone. We don’t want to run the world alone. We’re not an imperial power. And ultimately we have to make sure that some international system is preserved to deal with the rogue nations of the world and the other problems that we have [for some reason, Madeline Albright didn't think so in her war against Serbians].

MR. RUSSERT: But if Mr. Blix comes back on Friday and says, “Saddam is still not cooperating,” and the French and the Russians and the Chinese say, “Well, you know, give him more time,” and President Bush says, “No, no, I had a resolution passed in November. I’ve drawn the sword. I’m using it. I’m going forward with”—what he calls— "the willing coalition without the U.N.,” would you support that?MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that they ought to try a bit more to get a resolution. I think they’ll get it. I cannot believe that the French would ever go against us on this ultimately. And I think, in the end, we, obviously, are going to have to go. It isn’t alone. There is a coalition of countries that’s going, but I think that it will ultimately be at a loss in many ways to a functioning system, and I also think, at this stage, our credibility is on the line. We have a lot of forces over there and that’s why I said I would support the president on it and I obviously would support our troops.

MR. RUSSERT: When you were advising President Clinton about Kosovo, he went forward without United Nations approval.

MS. ALBRIGHT: Well, we had NATO total approval of it and it was a NATO operation [false, America made up the bulk of the operation], and I spent every day talking to my allied partners, every single day we had a conference call about what was going on. So it was a very different aspect, and also there had been previous authorization under the U.N [there was also previous U.N. authorization for use of force against Iraq even before Resolution 1441]. But if ultimately you can’t make it work, then you do have to go a different route, and I do agree with those who are saying that the U.N. is being tested. It’s a combination of the U.N. and the U.S. in terms of how we want to see the future of the world operate.I have to say this, Tim, I know that it’s very easy for those of us who are out to be critical of those who are in. And I remember how disturbed I used to get when I used to watch those that had preceded us criticizing us. The jobs are very, very hard, and I think that those people that are doing the jobs are doing the best they can but these are very hard decisions. And they need to stick together and try to figure out a way to present a united front. But I take my hat off to all those who are working these problems. They’re very hard problems to work with. [why then does she and her cohorts take every opportunity to make potshots at GW? and weakens America's front against terrorism by claiming GW's diplomacy not Saddam is responsible for War in Iraq?](http://www.msnbc.com/news/870638.asp?cp1=1).

NEOCON CLAIM OF TERRORIST CONNECTIONS WITH IRAQ"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (2/18/98)"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers." - AP story in the Washington Post (2/14/99)"The liberation of Iraq is inevitable. When that day comes, and the whole truth about Saddam Hussein's regime spills out, we will be proud of the stand we took. And if our post-overthrow support of Iraq aids a transition to democracy, our pride should double. For democracies do not wage war against one another. Democracies do not allow their people to starve." - Sen. Bob Kerrey (9/29/99)

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

AMERICAN MILITARY REGIME CHANGE NEVER CREATED DEMOCRACY?

American military intervention never created democracy? Japan, Germany, Israel, Taiwan, S Korea. Can America create democracies in Arab states? Well, against the Sunni Islamists, Woolsey pointed out that the United States had always fought under the banner of democratic ideals and individual liberty. On the whole we had done well. In 1917, there were but ten democracies in the world and today there were 120 either free or mostly free states. One-half of the non-Arab, Muslim-predominant states are democracies. So the job could be done. Bush Warns Terrorists Not to Take Advantage of Election Debacle NewsMax.com Wires, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2000 AUSTIN, Texas (UPI) – President-elect Bush waded into foreign affairs Wednesday, received his second White House security briefing and huddled with his chief foreign policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice. Bush said terrorists should not make any moves against the United States during the political uncertainly surrounding the presidential election. "I have all the confidence in the world that the Clinton administration and the next administration, which I hope is the Bush administration, will do whatever it takes to send a chilling signal to terrorists that we'll protect our property and our people," Bush told reporters during a brief appearance before cameras alongside Rice. "The warning ought to be that, as we decide this election, people should not try to take advantage of our nation." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/6/163850.shtml